linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the pm tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200928114046.000005ae@Huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Sep 2020 11:40:46 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Linux Next Mailing List" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the pm
 tree

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 20:24:59 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   01feba590cd6 ("ACPI: Do not create new NUMA domains from ACPI static tables that are not SRAT")
>   4eb3723f18e9 ("ACPI: Rename acpi_map_pxm_to_online_node() to pxm_to_online_node()")
> 
> from the pm tree and commit:
> 
>   b499f2c84cbf ("ACPI: HMAT: refactor hmat_register_target_device to hmem_register_device")
> 
> from the akpm-current tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 

Looks like the correct conflict fix to me.

Thanks

Jonathan